I wish the article brought up the other side of the Airbnb controversy in SF. Landlords evict tenants under an Ellis Act or Owner Move In and then turn the unit into a ~luxury vacation rental~. Under the regulations of these no-fault evictions, they're prohibited from putting them back on the rental market for a few years. Airbnb is a way to still profit from them. It is happening all over the city.
"still profit from them" do you mean the landlords use airbnb to profit because they're prohibited from turning units back on the rental market? just want to make sure I'm reading that correctly.
Yes, sorry that wasn't super clear. If a landlord invokes the Ellis Act in a building, the apartments can not be re-rented, except at the same rent the evicted tenant was paying, for five years following the evictions. If a landlord does an "Owner Move In" eviction, they have to LIVE in that unit for three years before returning it to the rental market. AirBnB is a way to rent out the unit "temporarily" at a market rate (generally, no fault evictions occur in rent controlled units w/ long term residents).
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying!
I suspect the evictees all signed leases which specifically prohibit subletting. So the landlords are within their rights.
But But But something something market something efficiency something something disruption something GRR REGULATION
The Chron said the landlords were overreaching in some cases.